User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 12

Taj
While I'm here, I wonder if you might be able to help me. I've been trying to sort out the appaling travesty that is the Taj Mahal article, away from mainspace. The project became too large at the original restructure and I've now forked it into Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal - I'll rewrite the main Taj Mahal restructure when I've finished tidying up 'origins'. There's a section in the restructure called Post construction history and legacy which will eventually deal with European reactions, the British and the influence of the Taj on the world. Reading your user page I note your interest in C18/19 female writers - I wonder if you know - or could contribute anything regarding the influence of the Taj in literature - I know it was widely lauded by those with a romantic and picturesque sensibility, but concrete examples in literature would be great. --Joopercoopers 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That's an interesting question. Do I have some time to look around? A couple of weeks, maybe? (The works of E. M. Forster and Rudyard Kipling come to mind immediately, but I don't know if there is anything in them about the Taj specifically. Where exactly did Mark Twain go in Innocents Abroad? Did he leave the middle east?) Awadewit | talk  22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure, I'm really taking my time with this one and like I said, I'm sorting out the origins first and dealing with critical reactions in the main article (There's a suggested fork for Taj Mahal in history and culture if that section gets too unwieldy as well). Twain wrote about it in Following the equator - I've got this from project Gutenburg . Kipling said it was the 'Gateway through which all dreams must pass'. I was really interested in the comments of Ladies, - there's plenty of journal entries I believe, but I wondered if something might have ended up in literature, particularly as its standard interpretation is as a monument to love. --Joopercoopers 10:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it, will look for women writers. Awadewit | talk  10:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Spellings
Ah, good question - there's quite a few (doubtless a result of the European tongue trying to wrap itself around asian words). Francois Bernier spelt it "Tage Mehale" other alternatives might be "Tadj Mahal" (Chaghtai writing in french), as recently as Banister Fletcher I think it was spelt "Tag Mahal". There was a British East India Company employee who witnessed the construction called Peter Mundy who described it, I think as "Tage Mehele" There's some more - I'll get back to you tonight when I've got my books with me. --Joopercoopers 14:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * commenting on this-
 * Having a chat in the office one day with a few people, someone said to a young girl
 * "you're holding that pen in a very Churchillian way"
 * "What?"
 * "You know Winston Churchill - from the second world war"
 * "What! There's been two?"

--Joopercoopers 12:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah! Exactly. Awadewit | talk  12:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

McLaughlin Planetarium
I just wanted to say "thank you" for taking the time to do a GA review of the McLaughlin Planetarium article. I've made a start on the work you suggested, and I will let you know when I would like the article re-reviewed.

Cheers! Captmondo 10:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And again, "thank you" for passing the article into GA status. Cheers! Captmondo 14:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of Mary Wollstonecraft
Hi Awadewit,

I saw your message a few days ago but didn't have the time to consider it fully. I see this has expanded somewhat from a bare list, largely concerning Mary's own life, to become a table with Literary and World events juxtaposed. One of your sources is available online here. You might want to include a convenience link to that.


 * Thanks for that link. I have added it to the page. Awadewit | talk  16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you have combined a few MW chronologies. I assume from their number that this technique for outlining a person's life is commonplace for historical figures. My first reaction on seeing your chronology was to wonder why someone (apart from the most studious) would want to read of her life in that form rather than in prose. Indeed, it is somewhat bare (just the facts) so really needs to be read in conjunction with an article/book that fleshes out her life story. Why did you decide to create this chronology rather than expand the Life part of the main article or write a short daughter article?


 * Again, I wasn't sure about combining chronologies, but since everyone else seems to do it, I thought I might as well. Most things appear on numerous chronologies, so the combination is a result of one chronology having only a year and another having the day/month - things like that. Awadewit | talk  16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have already written quite a few articles on MW. I am the primary editor for Mary Wollstonecraft (FA), A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (FA), Original Stories from Real Life (FA), Mary: A Fiction (FAC), Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman (GA), and Thoughts on the Education of Daughters (GA). I am currently working on Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark and Vindication of the Rights of Men as well as this chronology to round out a MW featured topic. I thought that a chronology would be a nice addition to this set of articles. Awadewit | talk  16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is with the two extra columns. The biggest potential problem is Original Research, a policy that I thought you interpreted more strictly than me :-). Related to that is the question of their relevance to Mary Wollstonecraft. Clearly there are some world events that affect her life deeply (the French Revolution being an obvious one).


 * I was concerned about original research as well. What I have done is only include events that are on multiple timelines, making them important by "consensus" (I do not know if this assuages your OR concerns or not, but it helped assuage mine). Also, I specifically included things beyond the events relevant to MW so that readers can get an idea of what the world was like in the eighteenth century. I did not include any events that I personally thought were important; if they were not on the timelines, I didn't include them. Awadewit | talk  16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

On my own Timeline of tuberous sclerosis, I combined timeline sources. One of these was good enough to link their TSC timeline with medical advances such as CT and MR scanners. I could have added some more related-medical events such as the invention of the EEG and the discovery of the first effective anticonvulsants. (Some argue that the history of Epilepsy can be divided neatly in two: Before EEG and After EEG. It is not an insignificant event!) Unfortunately, I don't have a source that links this to TSC in a way that indicates its historical significance.

In addition to OR concerns, I worry a little that such juxtaposition could be applied to any personal timeline, each with their own selection of historical events.
 * I think that personal timelines are most useful when contrasted with "historical" timelines and that is what I would expect to see in any good personal timeline. Why are you worried that other personal timelines would adopt this same structure? If they are very carefully sourced and arranged, what is the problem? Seeing historical figures in context this way is extremely informative; I certainly learned a lot from making the timeline! Awadewit | talk  16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Colin°Talk 13:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't had time to review your articles more closely. I sold my home computer and have a new job, so I'm taking a leave of absence from Wikipedia for a while. I'm amazed at how much you have contributed regarding Wollstonecraft and wish that I had the time and resources to collaborate further on them. I wish you the best of luck and hope that you continue to be active on Wikipedia. It certainly needs more editors like you! I will continue to check my talk page, so if you need any administrative assistance (article moves or protection, etc.) just let me know. Or if you would be interested in becoming an administrator yourself, I would certainly be glad to nominate you. Kaldari 16:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you are quite busy! I will also have to restrict my wikipedia editing soon - I start teaching again in three weeks. Awadewit | talk  16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If when you return to wikipedia, you would give the Wollstonecraft articles a perusal, I would still appreciate it. FA doesn't mean "done", as you well know. I am also planning on rewriting the "Major works" section of Mary Wollstonecraft to better reflect the new articles. Ideally, I would also like to improve the articles on Fanny Imlay, Mary Shelley, William Godwin, Gilbert Imlay and Memoirs of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman to include in the MW featured topic developing in my head, but I am somewhat daunted by the work that Godwin and Shelley would be in particular. Perhaps that is a project for next summer. :) Awadewit | talk  16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was actually thinking of suggesting a move for Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman to The Wrongs of Woman. The book is most often referred to by that abbreviation and the punctuation in the current article title is unnecessarily arcane, I think. What do you think? Awadewit | talk  16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's kind of you to offer to nominate me for adminship, but I think that I can be most useful to wikipedia as a content contributor. Awadewit | talk  16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No RfA. He's excellent at what he does. That would take time away from his awesome contributions. That is unless he wants to be an administer. I would support 100%! - Jeeny Talk 05:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Awadewit is a she. How is it not obvious? It seems to be a common misconception around here which is funny considering most of Awadewit's contributions are about women. No harm though, just funny.-BillDeanCarter 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I had assumed that people would think I was a woman based on my edits - it would be a pretty safe bet. In a way it is nice that others didn't make that assumption. Why so many people think I'm a "he" is rather mysterious to me - because most wikipedia editors are male? Thanks for all of the encouragement, guys/gals. :) Awadewit | talk  14:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! Guilty as charged. :) I thought you were Übersexual, or something. LOL. j/k. Sorry if I offended you. I still think you're awesome. If fact, I now think you are more awesome. :) - Jeeny Talk 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all offended. I'm flattered that I can pass for a man. Gay, straight, bi or transgendered. :) Awadewit | talk  04:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronology-timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft
Now that you ask, I am not so sure anymore. I did a quick look into Special:Prefixindex and while the balance seems to clearly be in favor of "timeline", there are hefty numbers of "chronologies". In the end, what clinched it for me was that all such Featured lists use "Timeline", which also has the advantage of being significantly shorter. Circeus 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at the featured lists, but all of those timelines are about things or fields. There are, as of yet, no personal timelines (I think). I did, however, find "chronology" articles on people. Just to let you know how my thinking went. If you believe that "timeline" will end up being the universal favorite, I'm fine with that. Awadewit | talk  21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As it is, I just noticed that Lists (stand-alone lists) recommends "timeline", though I'm not sure how followed at all it is.
 * "Timeline" is fine. I am not wedded to "chronology." Awadewit | talk  00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comment about division, yes, ease of editing was the sole reason for the split. It is a rather humongous section after all. If you have better ideas for dividing it, feel free, but straight temporal division felt the most straightforward.
 * I have no better suggestion, but I am a little concerned about the division. I'll think more about it. Awadewit | talk  00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On a completely different level, as I look at it, I can't help feeling that quite a few events are not linked enough to Wolfstonecraft (after a cursory glance, anyway) to warrant entries. E.g. Brittanica's editions (Why the first and third, but not the 2nd?) or the discovery of Uranus. I can understand that in many books, these are given as "contextual references", however, I believe such asides are entirely unnecessary and distracting in Wikipedia. Circeus 00:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here was my reasoning for including events: if they were on multiple timelines that I consulted, I included them (see my concerns about original research above). I feel that if I start deleting items that I personally feel are not relevant to Wollstonecraft, the list will tilt even further towards OR. Whom am I to say that the discovery of Uranus is not relevant to Wollstonecraft, for example? Furthermore, I do believe that timelines with "context" are far more useful than timelines that just list the major events in a person's life. I cannot tell you how much I learned putting this together. I would hope that a careful reader would learn the same. Awadewit | talk  00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is no information as to the way something impacted her, thats equally much OR. This looks as much like a "british timeline of the second half of the 18th century with events of Mary Wollstoncrafte's life" as a "Timeline of Mary Wollstoncrafte". If there is reason to connect the events, they should be included, such as the French Revolution (I if understand correctly, she wrote quite a few things about it), but otherwise, I fail to see why they belong.  How about we copy this to the article's talk page and continue the discussion there? Circeus 02:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow you're work on Mary Wollstonecraft is excellent not only the timeline but some of her works too. Can I just ask if she is a specialist interest of yours or do you intend doing similar work on other feminist figures? Whatever the case you're clearly a great asset to the reputation of the encyclopedia. Keep up the good work ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you?" Contribs 13:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment. Wollstonecraft is definitely a particular interest of mine (she forms a crucial part of my dissertation). I intend on contributing more articles on women in the eighteenth century - some could be considered feminists. Are there any you would particularly like to see developed? Awadewit | talk  14:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Troilus GA assessment
Hi, I've been working through your recommendations at Talk:Troilus and I want to come back to you about one of them, namely:


 * The bulletted list in the "Modern interpretations" section should be turned into paragraphs. This would be another good place to insert some generalizations to guide the reader through the specifics.

The problem I have is that I want to include descriptions of some of the uses of the character where I've been unable to identify commentaries on this feature of the texts. My reading of WP:NOR is that it is fine to include plot descriptions if they are free of interpretation, but that as soon as I start organising the information and intermingling the plots with the generalisations I would be doing original research. (Removing the bullets themselves is obviously an easy exercise.)


 * That is my reading of WP:OR as well (frankly, I don't even think that a plot summary can be "free of interpretation"). So, there are no scholarly sources that say something like (I'm making this up now) "While Troilus was a central character in myth and story throughout ancient, medieval and early modern literature, he has generally been relegated to a supporting role in twentieth-century literature and film"? I know that such generalized statements can be hard to find (literary scholars in particular don't like to make them - they are hard to prove); they often appear in encyclopedias of literature or "introductory" books like the Cambridge Companion. In my articles I am often forced to combine the heavy duty scholarship with "lighter" texts like these because only they provide overarching narratives. Have you looked up "Troilus" in some literary encyclopedias? (I can't believe I am saying this - usually I am asking people, "have you read about "The Raven" outside of Poe biographies" and the like.)


 * I'll see what I can find in the local reference library.

I'll be intersted in your view on this. I don't need a reply in a terrible hurry as I still have the medieval/renaissance section to review and this will likely take a week.

Oh and BTW I have introduced a list at Troilus, but I hope you will agree that this helps organise the information in a way that the reader can better understand it. --Peter cohen 15:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I wonder if there is a way to combine some of those themes. The sections are a bit small. What about combining "Beauty", "Youthfulness" and "Pederastic love", for example, or "Location of ambush and death", "Mutilation" and "Mourning"? I know that such combinations are difficult, but the list looks a bit daunting to the reader, I think. Apparently lists over five items long are hard for people to remember. Awadewit | talk  20:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll have a think about whetehr its best to combine or separate. I don't actually need people to remember the list. It just seemed a way of organising the info to make it clear that each theme weas covered.

Thansk again --Peter cohen 15:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Contratulations
On the success of your featured list candidate. I notice that the final tally was 6 in favor, none opposed. Unanimous!--Filll 16:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If you have any time, perhaps you could look at the Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft that I created. I was thinking of nominating it for featured list, but, again, I am not sure that it is the kind of thing that FL people are looking for. Any advice would be much appreciated. Awadewit | talk  16:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is clearly a lot of work. I wonder if you have considered another method of introducing references? I use the same method as you do, but many complain about it, and in the case of this list, I wonder if the Harvard method might be better. I am not sure. --Filll 23:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that having "(Lynch)" or somesuch notation next to every entry would add to the already cluttered look of the page. Awadewit | talk  01:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Romantic friendship
Here, I found a link for the concept we're all struggling with in Mary: A Fiction. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I have added it to the article. Awadewit | talk  17:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input at UCR
I appreciate your insights. I'll definitely implement your suggestions and re:nom the article in another week or so. Best, Amerique dialectics 17:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad my comments were helpful. Awadewit | talk  17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Teaching moment
Umm, I'm really mortified and don't want to talk about it much, but thank you for the gentle comment at my talk page. I remember learning from Charles Dickens' The Haunted Man that — errors can serve a good purpose; both may benefit from redeeming forgiveness. A sorrier but better Willow 19:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I almost didn't say anything because I knew you weren't trying to be mean, but I thought that you might be amenable to a little comment from a friend. Awadewit | talk  21:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Awadewit; you're a true friend. :) I'm up very early today and I see that we're on at the same time! :)  My sister's visit is going wonderfully; I really love my niece. :D She's still too young to learn to knit :(, but I held her hands and we knitted a row of a scarf together, in a "dusty rose" wool (her favorite color).  I also held her hands as we cooked dinner together; she chopped garlic for the first time and sauteed it with squash and eggplant, all from the garden.  We danced in the garden afterwards and I tried to explain to her about dolmades, how people will wrap up "good things" inside a grape leaf.  She asked for a big beautiful grape leaf, which I gave her, and she solemnly told me that she was going to wrap money up in the leaf and give it to poor people.  We also talked about my departed kitty, whom she remembers vividly.  Oops, the baby is just now getting up, so I might not be able to write much more today.  Congratulations on all your FAs, and sorry about talking too much about myself and unencyclopedic topics, Willow 08:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How old is your niece? She sounds very young. I tend not to spend time around children until they can talk - they are much more interesting then. :) Did you know that during the eighteenth century, someone claimed to have raised a child in total isolation and reported to the "scientific" world that it started speaking Hebrew on its own? Awadewit | talk  18:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You are full of DYK's! :) I suppose that the idea was to "show" that Hebrew was the Natural Language — oh, b'vakashah.  I can't help but pity the poor child, whose whole life served only to promote a conclusion reached before the child was even born.  Better for the scientist to just lie about the results than to conduct such a monstrous experiment; but wait, maybe that's what they did?  ;)

My niece is just over five now, but we've been close since before she could really talk. She's the first-born of that generation, and I had the pleasure of teaching her many of her words. She wasn't even two years old when I used to carry her around the garden and forest, putting her hands on the various plants and trees and letting her smell them, and teaching her all their names. Nowadays we tell each other stories and play make-believe games all the time: "Ok, pretend that..." Her mom can't believe that I enjoy playing with her so much, but for my part, I can't help but see the world through her eyes. It's too early for knitting, though; she's just learning to count to 100, to read and to tie her shoelaces. She likes the scarf we started together, and looks forward to finishing it someday. :) Willow 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr. No (film)
Hi, I was wondering what your concerns are regarding about that article's GA status. OhanaUnited   Talk page   18:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that there were three GA fails in a very short space of time. My concerns are outlined in my own GA review/fail of the article. It seemed to me that the editors only wanted to change small things, not really improve the article and were simply reposting it every time it failed to try and find someone who would pass it. It seems that they succeeded. Awadewit | talk  18:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Raven
Just wanted to say "thank you" for all the clean-up work you did today on "The Raven." The truth is, if I didn't catch my mistake the first time, I probably never will (which is why I've been hoping someone would help out)! Anyway, thanks! --Midnightdreary 22:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, although I hardly did anything at all. If you want me to really copy edit the article, let me know (see also my peer review). You might not be so thankful after you read that! I tend to do very thorough peer reviews. I hope it's helpful rather than overwhelming. Awadewit | talk  22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! I'm still quite thankful. =) My writing style has often been overly wordy with awkward syntax and it's worth it to be reminded of that as often as possible. I'll take all your suggestions into consideration; they were very useful and I said, "d'oh!" for just about everything you suggested! If you're bored, you should check how much the article has evolved in the past two or three months; it's kept me busy! --Midnightdreary 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a verbose writer myself - it is hard to rein in, I know. I checked the history - you certainly have done a lot of work. That is usually how it is with literature articles, I'm afraid. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of editors working on the literature pages. Awadewit | talk  23:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Master's Thesis
Yes, I was joking about the Master's Thesis. Best, --SECisek 10:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hard to tell sometimes. I've seen people make that complaint before at FAC (that we are asking for Master's Theses), so it seemed reasonable that I might see it again. Awadewit | talk  10:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte Crossing the Alps
Is this ready to be re-submitted to GA yet do you think? I can't seem to find much more on the criticism, but I've expanded everything else greatly. What do you think? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 18:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you give me a day or two, I will look over it again. Awadewit | talk  04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you have provided sources; but what about the content? Is it GA worthy? Why and why not? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 22:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't re-read the article yet. I'll put some comments on the talk page later today. Awadewit | talk  01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems apparent that you have now done some good things with the article, and have now re-read it it. Is it ready now, do you think? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks ton for your further comments. I have begun to work on some of them, and am considering working on a few of them. there were two I, in part, disagreed with. I simply cannot find sources on further reception. I have scoured everywhere, but nothing specific enough to that work to add to the section. Secondly - the gallery. Comprised of cropped images, I believe this gallery contains useful and fairly well described fragments of the two paintings. It gives a few comments I would have added were these pictures in the article (not enough room). Otherwise, I think you have made some good points. I will work on some stuff, and resubmit for GA tomorrow. Do you think that this is a wise course of action? Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if there are no sources, there are no sources. That is that on reception. Most of what you say in the gallery is basically in the article, right? If you keep the gallery, try to find new things to say there that can only be said with the gallery. That way, there is a justification for it. Also, I think that enlarged and cropped images would be best. The images are already small and many people won't click on them. Awadewit | talk  12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would wait a few days before submitting to GAC. Give yourself some time to copy edit very carefully and perhaps find others to help you. Do you read your articles aloud? That is an excellent way to do the final stages of copy editing. Dropped words and awkward sounding phrases are much easier to catch that way. Awadewit | talk  12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Copy-edit down in Microsoft word. It seems to be pretty good now. I dunno; I'm gonna be a bit stubborn, submit this to GAC again. I really do think this merits GAC status, but, if it fails again, then I will improve it greatly, and go, if I can, straight to FAC. Thanks so much for your help Awadewit. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It all depends on who you get as a reviewer at GAC - the standards seem to vary greatly. If you are thinking of submitting it to FAC, however, more work would need to be done, I think. The comprehensiveness and prose standards at FAC are much higher than those at GAC and the article must conform to every detail of the manual of style. If you do decide to go for FA, let me know and I will try to help you out. I would like to see this article achieve FA - it is an important (and beautiful) painting. Awadewit | talk  17:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know more work would need to be done. Would you really help me out? That would be absolutely fantastic. Much appreciated. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be very busy over the next few weeks, but I will try to do some reading on the painting and Delaroche. I will also, of course, be able to review the article and copy edit it based on your requests ("please check the organization"; "please check against the MOS", etc.) Awadewit | talk  03:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Stacked timeline template?
Hi Awadewit!

I looked over the Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft, and it looks very good; once again, you've lavished wonderful attention to the details! :) Because the full timeline has lots of information, however, perhaps you ought to precede it with a gentler introduction, a capsule summary, a kind of "Greatest Hits" of that era?  I was recently impressed by a "stacked timeline" about Catullus in a Dutch book, and thought that I might try to make a template for that here.  I'm sure that others must have done something like this before, perhaps even here at Wikipedia.  What do you think of this format?  Once we've agreed on a format, I'll try to code the template so that any person or period or event can be added to the stack.  I have to run out and do some shopping, but I'll probably be back within an hour or so; it's a good walk! :) Willow 23:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure whether I should have a miniature history of the late eighteenth century in addition to the Wollstonecraft information. In the end I decided against it since it is a Wollstonecraft timeline and, frankly, I shudder when I think of trying to write a summary of the end of the eighteenth century - British reform, the French revolution, etc. Ah! I'll see what I can do, though. I will add it to my long list of things to do. Awadewit | talk  04:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that stacked timelines work well for long stretches of time or when the items in the timeline themselves lasted for several years. Such timelines usually don't work well for literature, for example, because books are usually published at a single point in time. However, I think that this format is very useful for things like "Eighteenth-century authors" (as you have suggested with your draft already) or "The Hundred Years' War". Awadewit | talk  04:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC


 * By the way, I just finished the fifth Thursday Next novel (it was just released). You would really like it, I think. Awadewit | talk  04:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about Thursday! :) I've gradually finished off Books 2-4 over the past few months — the two death scenes were touching, no? — but now I'm engrossed in something fun but a little, ummm, earthier.  I also just bought the Golden Compass, which you also suggested and which I feel I ought to read before it comes out as a movie. That's a little strange, though, don't you think? I always find it better to read the book after I've seen the movie, since the book is almost always better.  That way, one gets two pleasures in a row, rather than one pleasure (book) followed by a disappointment (movie).  I might have to wait until Thursday comes out in paper back, or else cajole my local librarian to get it for me. ;)  Willow 04:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I like to read the book first. Otherwise my imagination is tainted by the movie's depiction of the "look of the world". I guess I have a weak imagination. Awadewit | talk  05:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Jane Austen Work Page Size
Thinking ahead, our combined work is now at 138 kilobytes, which sooner or later will attract the attention of whatever automated sentries watch for this. (I believe that they start to get excited at 90 kilobytes or so.) At that point, we will get a warning. When that happens, I propose splitting the work page in two or three parts if we cannot talk whoever is concerned into letting us continue. I prefer "one big union" to the trouble of working on multiple pages, but we may not have much choice. Good weekend. Simmaren 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think any bots come and destroy pages, do they? I had a page well over 100kb for weeks and nothing happened (and that was a real article). All I got was that little alert at the top of the page. Hopefully we can continue as is - I prefer the union as well. Awadewit | talk  00:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, this may not be a problem in user space, in which our work page is located, as opposed to article space, which I know is monitored. We'll find out. As far as I know, there are no destroyer bots, only people. And those who tend to the bots can be persuaded. Simmaren 18:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See my new layout efforts to reduce scrolling. Awadewit | talk  19:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
... for the Barnstar (my first). Compared to those of others, my contributions to the Shakespeare article were few and very late on, but it's nice to know that I made a bit of a difference. Best. --GuillaumeTell 10:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster
Thanks for the GA review and pass! While an FA revision is not on my schedule anytime soon, I will look at your more immediate concerns as soon as I get a chance. Lampman 13:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I hope my comments are useful. Awadewit | talk  17:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and a question
Thanks for the barnstar and for all the work you've been putting into literature-related articles around here. I've been following your work and I've been really impressed. Have you ever considered requessting to become an admin? I'd be happy to put your name forward and I'm sure other editors would join in to support the nomination. If you're interested, please e-mail or contact me sometimes. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I am cut out for adminship. Also, I am really only interested in writing and reviewing articles, for which I don't need admin tools, thankfully. I appreciate the sentiment. Perhaps you might consider evaluating my performance at my editorial review? I am trying to find ways to improve my "conflict-resolution" skills. Awadewit | talk  17:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do just that. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Auden bio
The Auden biography would be stronger and more complete if it included reference to D. H. Lawrence's considerable influence on Auden ca. 1928-36. Jyoung17102 14:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)jyoung17102


 * Perhaps you should post your concerns on this to the Auden talk page. I am not involved in editing that article. Awadewit | talk  17:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony at Mary FAC
I notice Tony's criticism at the Mary FAC is getting you a bit heated. If you like, I can try to take over responding to him. He's nitpicking, and he's not always right, but he means well, and he is occasionally right. In any case, it is usually better to behave as if a criticism is meant in good faith. I think I can try to do that (though possibly not quite as quickly as you've been able to so far; hopefully a day or so to respond is acceptable). Would you like me to handle his criticisms?

His criticisms are mostly style, which could be seen as your area, so I won't if you don't approve, but there haven't been many of the technical "wikilink all dates and remove spaces around all dashes" criticisms at the FAC, so I'm hardly living up to your high praise of me in the FAC lead otherwise! :-) I won't be able to answer any substance issues, but I can probably do something towards style. I'm no great hand at style on my own, but I can probably at least make some kind of compromise between your existing style and his suggestions. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be wonderful. I will watch for any content problems as the copy editing continues. Awadewit | talk  17:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt I'll have the time to copyedit the article (Shakespeare was my first, and I thought it would be my last) because I have a project that I've been working on all summer which is not yet half-done, and school begins later this month. However, my take on the situation is that the style of the lead section set him off and made him a bit more picky than he otherwise would have been. I generally try to avoid adjectives and adverbs -- especially those critical implications, such as "monumental" and "boldly" -- in most of my writing, and I feel it is even more important in what is supposed to be a neutral piece. I also try to simplify most verbal phrases -- "decided to embark on a writing career" or even "began her writing career" instead of "had made the monumental decision to embark on a writing career", for instance -- although sometimes the information demands a more complex construction. Having only the slightest acquaintance with the topic, I am hesitant to jump in.
 * It's OK to delete this message; I couldn't find an e-mail address. Tom Reedy 15:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not made my email address public. On the point about adjectives and adverbs, since they are a legitimate part of the language and make one's writing more interesting and often more precise, I tend to use them. For example, it would actually be incorrect to say that Wollstonecraft just "began her writing career". All of the biographies dedicate significant space to this choice - it wasn't like choosing to have pancakes for breakfast. Todd uses the word "extraordinary" when describing the decision, for example. Wollstonecraft was risking her reputation in choosing to be a writer. Bland phrases do not convey the appropriate sense of her radical choice. They are, in fact, original research, since Wollstonecraft's biographers use this kind of language to describe her decision. I have tried very carefully to adhere the sources for these articles; my adjectives and adverbs usually reflect what scholars themselves say about the issue. I understand your reticence to copy edit an article about a topic on which you know little - I am also hesitant to do that. Awadewit | talk  17:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I resisted the call to "boldly edit!" Your reply hardens into conviction my original tentative estimate of my unsuitability. (BTW, I do find it an interesting and -- to my mind, at least -- comprehensive treatment.) Tom Reedy 20:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
(The above thingie is homemade and so might be a bit infirm of design.)

And thanks so much for the barnstars you gave to the guys. It was a lovely touch and a healing moment, I suspect. As you know, if it wasn't for you, I wouldn't have got involved on that article at all. And all the time I've been working on it, I've been trying to achieve the standards that I've learned from you. It's been so worth it.qp10qp 20:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like second this homemade award. I just stumbled on your little struggle at FAC. I just want to say that as a relatively young editor, I have learned a lot from what you do. I'm a young undergrad in English with a love for literature, hoping to go on to grad school in the somewhat distant future. What I've learned from your suggestions and general example will, I'm sure, extend beyond Wikipedia. Wrad 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I really appreciate the kind words. (Wrad, if you have any questions regarding graduate school, I would be happy to answer them.) Awadewit | talk  23:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to third it. You remind me of an editor I had once when I was in journalism. We would go 'round and 'round arguing a point, and he usually got his way (he was, after all, the editor), even though I knew he was wrong. Almost always the next day I could see where he was right and I was wrong. And the few times I was right he had the class to admit it. Tom Reedy 03:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll fourth it. Don't let the struggle at FAC get you down. RedRabbit 05:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ER
I just noticed this. I can tell you what you need to know. Rather than go on editor review, I'd just ask a few people I could trust, if I were you. I notice you are friends with Willow, and I am sure that wise lady could say what is needed. For me, it boils down to two things: speedily identifying which articles and editors not to waste time on; communicating in assertive language only. I won't say any more unless you want me to, but I am certain that I can help with your concerns. I'd prefer to make any suggestions in semi-privacy somewhere, for example on one of my sandbox pages. (But don't worry, I wouldn't have a single bad thing to say.) At all costs, I want you to keep writing FAs, keep reviewing, and stay on Wikipedia.qp10qp 21:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have emailed both you and Willow. Unfortunately, I feel like I can't take the request for review down at this point - it seems wrong somehow. We'll just see what happens. Awadewit | talk  23:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Key to the Lock
Thanks for responding to my request for an image at Self-parody. Unfortunately, from what I've been able to read on the Web, in The Key to the Lock Pope isn't parodying himself but rather the kind of criticism that sees a political allegory where there isn't one. (The lock is the Barrier Treaty, whatever that was, and Belinda is Queen Anne.) So I don't think it's appropriate for the article. Do we have anything on satirical pseudonymous attacks on oneself?

Of course, I could be wrong, and anyway I don't "own" the article, but that's how it looks to me. &mdash;JerryFriedman 21:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought he was parodying himself and his critics. Oh well. It's an interesting problem - I'll keep thinking about it. Awadewit | talk  23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No Apologies Necessary
Sorry I haven't been very productive over the last few days - I have been immersed in the William Shakespeare FAC and the disasters arising at the FAC for an article I submitted. I hope to be back to full strength in a day or two, although the FAC may make me swear off FACs forever. Apparently my writing is atrocious. I warn you now. :) Awadewit | talk  08:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. You haven't diagnosed the problem correctly. Your writing is of high quality. You just seem to attract a certain type of over-involved under-perspectived critic. Aren't you glad to be working on the JA project with someone who's calm and has a good sense of humor? :) Please relax and recover as you need to. Simmaren 22:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed I am happy to be working with you. I think that our project represents the ideal that wikipedia strives for. Awadewit | talk  01:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Key to the Lock: the Sequel
I know nothing about Buffy (one reason that people other than me should be working on Self-parody). The ideal image would be one that showed self-parody. For instance, a shot from a Buffy episode next a shot from the scene from another episode that it parodied. (The shot we have at "The Zeppo", though it got my attention, would be more suitable to illustrate foreplay or Hollywood erotic conventions.) An identifiable reference, such as a cover or title page, from a work of self-parody might be useful and make the page look better, but in my opinion would be second-best. (An early printing of "Sir Thopas"?)

We have images from Dragonball and Neko Majin Z, but without knowing in advance, I wouldn't be able to tell which one was the parody of the other. Anyway, putting them in Self-parody might be straining fair use.

Wanting a painting or some such may just be my idiosyncrasy; I'd like something in the article from an art form other than writing, film, and video games.

Finally, I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion about The Key to the Lock. If it is self-parody, it should be in the article. &mdash;JerryFriedman 02:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Geogre would know for sure about The Key to the Lock. I'll keep my eye out for self-parodies. This is an intriguing question. Awadewit | talk  06:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to find John Tenniel's illustration to "The Lay of St. Odille" in The Ingoldsby Legends. No luck so far.  &mdash;JerryFriedman 19:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pham Ngoc Thao
Hello Awadewit. I know that the historical era is a bit off but I wonder if you have any interest in copyediting military history articles since you have put up an advertisement....This one is about a communist spy from the Vietnam war and is only around 13.5k in the mainspace. Kind regards,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to, if you can give me a few days. I'm a bit burned out on copy editing at the moment. I would do a better job in a couple of days. Awadewit | talk  08:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely. Thanks for your generosity.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the copyedit. I see that you put in a lot of time to do it very carefully. I have added in more context to the article in case that it helps you or if you want to have another look at it. Kind regards,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I love the picture! Thanks so much. I will look at the article again on Saturday. I am going on a little vacation, but I should be able to access a computer. Awadewit | talk  11:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK
Actually, I'm easing up on Shakespeare now, because the editing group has started pestering it a bit, I think. At the moment I'm preparing a careful review of another FAC article. And later I'm going to spend some time on what we talked about yesterday. But I'll have a look at it at some point, though it is after my period of interest (everything goes flat for me in about 1630, for some reason).

qp10qp 12:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the editor will be very grateful. I have no idea how many debts I owe you at this point, but feel free to cash them in whenever you are in need of a copy editor, reviewer, etc. Awadewit | talk  12:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive
-- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help on Plymouth Colony
It just passed FA... Thanks a lot for all of your help. You were not the only one to make significant contributions, but without your constant challenges to improve the article, it would have never made it. You are probably most responsible for driving me to make the article as good as I could, and I thank you. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that it has passed. Whenever you want a helping hand, let me know. Awadewit | talk  02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory errors
Instructions for building articlehistory templates are at ; when you finish building the template, if you scroll to the bottom of the talk page you can see if the red error category is lit up. Current processes are not added to the template, and empty templates return errors. On FACs, it's best to wait for GimmeBot to come through when the FAC closes; building the articlehistory prematurely stalls the bot and requires manual intervention. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing those errors. Awadewit | talk  19:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One for your user page
Hey, I noticed that you maintain a list of good editors etc. One to perhaps add is User:Kmusser. He may be one of the best map makers at wikipedia. He does excellent research on all of his maps (the one at Plymouth Colony, which he made, actually helped me make some changes to the text per his references) and his work is top notch and often fast (he has, for simpler maps, completed requests in less than an hour). Just thought you might like to add him to your list if you ever need him... --Jayron32| talk | contribs 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How fortuitous! I need a map-maker at this very moment for Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Awadewit | talk  03:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I give him my highest recommendations. Good luck! --Jayron32| talk | contribs  03:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...
Quite possibly the worst article I've ever seen. (yeah right) LOL -its great -great work well done!! Imagine how many missing GOOD articles there are!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 15:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Education of Daughters
I've been traveling this week and have been stuck behind a firewall since Monday. Some soul wrote cuss words on my talk, and so your message was blocked from me until just now. I would be very happy to read the article; to be fair I owe you a fair few favors at this stage, so. Ceoil 23:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I really appreciate it! Awadewit | talk  00:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've posted my first thoughts from a first reading . They are small, mostly trivial, and most are a matter of taste. I am someone unfamiliar with the period, without the tools for analysis; so I will soon post gaps in the text as I see them, if I can find them. Ceoil 13:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! I will start addressing them in the next few days. Thanks so much. Awadewit | talk  14:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)